A less government conservative Republican from Livingston County, MI
Opinions on this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Livingston County Republican Party.
Chairman of LCRP since January 2013

Friday, October 31, 2008

With Obama ticket, we hear a lot of talk about the Wilder effect or Bradley effect, which is often misunderstood. The Wilder effect is not about people voting against a candidate because of race. It's when a voter lies to the pollster saying that they are going to vote Wilder instead of the opponent they planned on voting, for whatever reason. It does not have to be race. The voter does not want the pollster to think that he or she is racist.

The Bradley effect is coined back in 1982, but there's another factor there, even in California. The BRADY effect. On the ballot was an extremely restrictive firearms law. This resulted in 80-90% turnout in some rural areas in California, which voted for to defeat Bradley.

The facts, however tell a different story. It isn't the "Bradley effect" Democrats should fear, but something else. Call it the "Brady effect," named after the one of the radical gun-ban lobbies in America, The Brady Campaign.

In 1982, gun-banners were successful in placing an initiative on the California ballot dubbed "Proposition 15," which would have essentially banned handgun sales and mandated gun registration statewide. Bradley supported the handgun ban and his opponent, George Deukmejian, opposed it. Polls showed that Prop 15 enjoyed early support in the campaign season. But that wouldn't last.

The National Rifle Association, in partnership with California state and local gun rights groups and grassroots activists, sprang into action, educating voters about the dangers of Prop 15 and how their Second Amendment rights hung in the balance.

By Election Day, Prop 15 had gone from having majority support to being radioactive. Not only did Republicans oppose it, but so did Reagan Democrats and an overwhelming majority of the state's law enforcement community. As Bill Saracino, who was executive director of Gun Owners of California at the time, recalls: "Because of Proposition 15, turnout in rural areas was unprecedented, reaching 85 percent to 90 percent in some Central Valley and Sierra foothill counties. Deukmejian's campaign was savvy enough to ride that tide."

And what a tide it was. Proposition 15 lost by a whopping 63 percent to 37 percent, and polls after the election showed that a clear majority of Californians who voted "no" on Prop 15 also voted against Tom Bradley in favor of George Deukmejian.

While many politicians and pundits of varying political persuasions have come to learn that the power of gun owners, hunters, sportsmen and freedom advocates cannot be ignored on Election Day - hardcore Liberals have a more difficult time facing reality. It is much easier for them to cry "racism" than swallow the truth.

The truth for them this time around is that Barack Obama is the most rabid anti-Second Amendment candidate to ever run for the U.S. presidency. Obama is not only opposed to right-to-carry permits for law-abiding gun owners, but has also endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.

As a U.S. Senator, Obama voted to ban most rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting. As a State Senator, he voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of citizens and homeowners who use a gun in self-defense. Also as a State Senator, he endorsed raising the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition 500 percent. And Obama supports gun registration - which history has shown is the first step to gun confiscation.

If Obama's legislative record on the Second Amendment isn't clear enough, he infamously reminded voters in Pennsylvania earlier this year of his disdain for gun owners, calling them bitter xenophobes who use the Bill of Rights, which protects gun ownership, and religion as a crutch.

The other inconvenient truth facing Obama supporters is that gun ownership is strong in the U.S. Roughly half of all American households own at least one gun, and according to an ATI-News/Zogby poll of likely voters, gun owners favor McCain over Obama by a more than 2 - 1 margin - 62 to 29 percent.

The Second Amendment is just one of many critical issues at the heart of the upcoming presidential election. The mythical "Bradley effect" may be some comfort for those who can't admit their political positions are unpopular. But Obama supporters and gun-banners should not be surprised if the very real "Brady effect" eats into their numbers on Election Day.

Obama is the most radical gun grabber ever to run for president, one who voted against allowing people to plea self-defense in cases if they defended themselves in their home, if the locality had a gun ban - like his home of Richard Daley's Chicago.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

If there is one thing that bothers me the most in politics, it is people who do not live what they believe. People that tell us, the people, to do one thing when they themselves do something completely different. I don't like it when it is done by the left or the right, and I lambasted the 06 Republicans for that.

The 2002-2006 Republicans lost congress due to too many of them not living what they believe. When a significant portion of the base is social conservatives, along with many of the moderate independents (social conservative, economic liberal), it's not going to be good when people like Don Sherwood make the news for allegedly choking his mistress 35-40 years younger than he is (while married). Sherwood, Foley, etc. When another portion of the base is economic conservatives, Ted Stevens and the bridge to nowhere is bad news. That also eliminates the social liberal, economic conservative moderates in addition to the base. That lead to an ass kicking in 2006 that was frankly deserved. Stevens is likely to be sent home this year, and Sherwood and Foley were sent home in 2006.

Barack Obama is the perfect example of the elitist hypocrite. He talks about being his brother's keeper. He talks about spreading the wealth. The bottom line though is that he sure does not act like his brother's keeper. He sure as hell doesn't spread his wealth. No, that's not for people like Barack Obama. That's for us. He wants us to not be our brother's keeper, but big government's forced donors. He wants us to spread the wealth to big government.

Even the left wing Huffington Post of all places showed Obama's record of charity, particulary before he ran for president. From the left

Up until recent years when their income increased sharply from book revenues and a Senate salary, Obama's family donated a relatively minor amount of its earnings to charity. From 2000 through 2004, the senator and his wife never gave more than $3,500 a year in charitable donations -- about 1 percent of their annual earnings. In 2005, however, that total jumped to $77,315 (4.7 percent of annual earnings), and to $60,307 in 2006 (6.1 percent).

Spreading the wealth, huh? But that's not the most shameful, not at all. For someone who claims to be his brother's keeper, he certainly doesn't extend that to even his own family.

What has this multi millionaire author and lawyer, done to help them? I'm not referring to handouts since I don't believe in them myself, but I do believe in hand-ups. This is his own family and in one case his own brother.

This is an example of another politician who fails to live what he believes. He talks about hope and change, but when it comes to DEEDS and ACTIONS, he shows that he is just another typical rich leftist generous with other people's money, and couldn't be bothered to help people himself. To him, that's government's job with other people's money.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

I got this press release sent to me. I wasn't on the panel this year due to time constraints, but I trust these people as the objective questions and scoring is the same. I'm not in Howell anymore, so I don't follow the schools there as much as I used to, but the Concerned Taxpayers Group PAC is still based in Howell, and most of the founders and a plurality of active members are still in that district.

CONCERNED TAXPAYERS PAC MAKES HOWELL SCHOOL BOARD ENDORSEMENTS

The Concerned Taxpayers Group, PAC, of Livingston County endorses Olav "Kris" Kauserud and Doug Moore for the two full-term positions up for election on the Howell School Board on November 4th. In the partial-term election for the Howell School Board, The Concerned Taxpayers Group, PAC, of Livingston County endorses Deborah Drick. All of the candidates were invited to participate in the endorsement process. Questionnaires that were returned were evaluated by our panel using an objective scoring method. Our panel consisted of citizens from Howell Twp., Cohoctah Twp., Brighton Twp., and the City of Brighton. This citizens panel is very concerned about the future of our public schools in Livingston County. The voters of Livingston County should have as much information as possible about which candidates will work towards responsible fiscal stewardship and to promote a sound educational environment in our public schools. The candidates endorsed above will work for positive change in those areas if elected.

Paid for by the CONCERNED TAXPAYERS GROUP, PAC, of LIVINGSTON COUNTY with regulated funds. 1*** (Address removed), Howell, MI 48855

Monday, October 27, 2008

You all know my stance on the 2nd Amendment. It's one of my bedrock issues in my less government philosophy. Those that know me also know of my lack of tolerance of stupidity when it comes to firearms. I'm not exactly a nice guy when it comes to that stuff, and won't put up with being around. This case here could have been prevented with a little common sense, especially from the range officer. I would never allow this. I'll explain why later.

The mother of an 8-year-old boy who shot himself to death at a supervised gun expo in Westfield yesterday says she’ll remember her son as an angel.

“He was a beloved, beautiful child. He was an angel,” said Suzanne Bizilj of Ashford, Conn., whose third-grade son, Christopher, died Sunday after firing an Uzi submachine gun at the Westfield Sportman’s Club.

Christopher apparently lost control as he fired the gun, forcing it upwards and back, causing him to shoot himself in the head, said Westfield Police Lt. Hipolito Nunez. Christopher was under the supervision of a certified instructor, as well as his father, Dr. Charles Bizilj, when he was shot.

The annual machine gun show is advertised as a free-for-all for gun enthusiasts, and has created discord among some club members, said longtime club member Bob Greenleaf.

“To let an 8-year-old boy fire an Uzi is the height of stupidity,” said Greenleaf.

Greenleaf, a member of the club for 44 years, was so opposed to the annual machine gun shoot that he resigned from the club’s board of directors four years ago.

An ad for the show posted on the Sportman’s Club Web site boasts: “No age limit or licenses required to shoot machine guns, handguns, rifles or shotguns!!!”

“You will be accompanied to the firing line with a certified instructor to guide you, But You Are In Control - Full Auto Rock And Roll.”

This is rare. Real rare that it happens at a range, and real rare that it was with a Class III firearm. A true Uzi is a class III firearm. They are very tightly regulated and have been since 1934. In order for me to own a Class III firearm (Fully automatic), I need to pay $200 for the stamp, send in fingerprints, get the permission of the local chief law enforcement, and then cough up at least $10,000 and probably $20,000 for a pre-1986 fully automatic firearm. There's also been one homicide in 70 years with a legally owned Class III firearm (by a cop). I'm not sure how many negligent stupidity causing deaths which happened by this, but that's probably in the single digits as well.

I am not adverse to SUPERVISED 8 year olds firing a gun in proper conditions, as long as it is the right gun. .22, .410. Low on recoil, easier to handle.

I've shot pistols, shotguns, and rifles and am familiar with the recoil of each and the variences of recoil. It takes time and experience to get used to it. If you rapid fire (not my style) a semi-auto, you see a little bit of a kick. The pistol rises up as the gun fires. I've never fired an uzi, but I have fired a fully automatic firearm once, on full auto. I was in my early 20's, 190 pounds, and in pretty good shape. I did not have an easy time controlling the recoil on that. Not at all. While it was fun shooting, I would damn well not want to give someone probably 60-85 pounds a full auto to shoot, considering my own troubles at 200 pounds and some experience. It would take me much more shooting to have the ability to control a fully automatic pistol or carbine.

Three major mistakes were made here.

Mistake 1 - Full auto firing. An 8 year old does not have the strength to control the firearm, nor the experience in dealing with it. I pin this on the range officer who should have said, no and explained why.

Mistake 2 - Not using 3 round burst to limit trouble. If this was insistant, the uzi should have been set to a 3 round burst, not the whole magazine.

Mistate 3 - Range officer was not right there with him to jump in when he lost control. He should have seen that beforehand. The range officers I know would never ever let this happen. This was not proper supervision.

No, I'm not going anti-gun, but I am a hardass about gun safety, and this is something that could have been prevented with better situational awareness, common sense, and experience. SAFR always hosts a family firearms day, usually either in the Howell area or Battle Creek area. You will never see this there. Everyone makes sure of it. The range officers there are in control.

Saturday, October 25, 2008

A lot of hype and claims are being made about Proposal 2. I was leaning against when I saw the ballot language, and I'm staunchly against this now after I real the actual language. You'll find a lot of sites and reasons, scientific and otherwise attacking this proposal, but I'm going to stick with something I'm more familiar with. Language.

Here is the ballot summary language of Proposal 2. Unedited and verbatum. This is what you see on the ballot.

Proposal 2:

A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO ADDRESS HUMAN EMBRYO AND HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH IN MICHIGAN

The proposed constitutional amendment would- Expand use of human embryos for any research permitted under federal law subject to the following limits: the embryos - * are created for fertillity treatment purposes;* are not suitable for impantation or are in excess of climical needs;* would be discarded unless used for research;* were donated by the person seeking fertillity treatment.

- Provide that stem cells cannot be taken from human embryos more than 14 days after cell division begins.

- Prohibit state and local laws that prevent, restrict, or discourage stem cell research, future therapies, and cures.

Should this proposal be adopted?

Yes___

No____

See anything wrong with how this is written? I'll have to look up more precedents, but I have several concerns. I'll break down this, line by line. I assume attorneys wrote this, and every word there is for a reason.

A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTIONTO ADDRESS HUMAN EMBRYO AND HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH IN MICHIGAN

First off, this is a Constitutional Amendment. That is the Supreme Law of Michigan, second only to the US Supreme Court. Secondly, it mentioned not just "stem cell" research, but Human Embryo research itself.

- Expand use of human embryos for any research permitted under federal law subject to the following limits: the embryos -

ANY research. Federal law prohibits federal tax dollars going to embryonic stem cell research. That's it. Think of all the possibilities that can be used with embryo research. Cloning. Humam animal hybrids. etc.

Why is only stem cell research mentioned here? Look at the words. Everything is added for a reason. This does not address for research besides embryonic stem cell research.

- Prohibit state and local laws that prevent, restrict, or discourage stem cell research, future therapies, and cures.

Notice again how this is written. This is the worst line of the whole proposal, despite my otherwise libertarian leaning views. What does "discourage" mean? Blocking of tax money? I have no idea. Attorneys I know who I asked about this have no idea. I'm not sure if even a Georgetown grad could figure out the meaning of "discourage." Restrict is a rather broad word as well. The second part is written so it looks like it refers only to stem cell research. No, that's just one portion. "Future therapies." What is that? That can be anything. Cloning for cures? Therapies?

The actual law is posted at MICAUSE, which is leading the fight against this.

Petition Language: INITIATIVE PETITIONAMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTIONA Proposal to Amend the Constitution of the State of Michigan by adding a new Article I, Section 27 as follows:

(2) To ensure that Michigan citizens have access to stem cell therapies and cures, and to ensure that physicians and researchers can conduct the most promising forms of medical research in this state, and that all such research is conducted safely and ethically, any research permitted under federal law on human embryos may be conducted in Michigan, subject to the requirements of federal law and only the following additional limitations and requirements:

(a) No stem cells may be taken from a human embryo more than fourteen days after cell division begins; provided, however, that time during which an embryo is frozen does not count against this fourteen day limit.

(b) The human embryos were created for the purpose of fertility treatment and, with voluntary and informed consent, documented in writing, the person seeking fertility treatment chose to donate the embryos for research; and

(i) the embryos were in excess of the clinical need of the person seeking the fertility treatment and would otherwise be discarded unless they are used for research; or

(ii) the embryos were not suitable for implantation and would otherwise be discarded unless they are used for research

(c) No person may, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell human embryos for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures.

(d) All stem cell research and all stem cell therapies and cures must be conducted and provided in accordance with state and local laws of general applicability, including but not limited to laws concerning scientific and medical practices and patient safety and privacy, to the extent that any such laws do not:

(i) prevent, restrict, obstruct, or discourage any stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures that are permitted by the provisions of this section; or

(ii) create disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with such research or therapies or cures.

(3) Any provision of this section held unconstitutional shall be severable from the remaining portions or this section.

Going over this:

(1) Nothing in this section shall alter Michigan’s current prohibition on human cloning.

What is human cloning?(a) “Human cloning” means the use of human somatic cell nuclear transfer technology to produce a human embryo.

The prohibition is only limited to this:

(1) An individual shall not intentionally engage in or attempt to engage in human cloning.

(2) Subsection (1) does not prohibit scientific research or cell-based therapies not specifically prohibited by that subsection.

(3) An individual who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than $10,000,000.00, or both.

(4) As used in this section, “human cloning” means that term as defined in section 16274 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.16274.

Hybrids? That's being pushed in parts of England.

Combine with this:

any research permitted under federal law on human embryos may be conducted in Michigan

and then this.

(d) All stem cell research and all stem cell therapies and cures must be conducted and provided in accordance with state and local laws of general applicability, including but not limited to laws concerning scientific and medical practices and patient safety and privacy, to the extent that any such laws do not:

(i) prevent, restrict, obstruct, or discourage any stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures that are permitted by the provisions of this section; or

(ii) create disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with such research or therapies or cures.

Those words. "discourage, restrict"

This is a poorly written proposal and a poorly written amendment for the constitution unless you want blanket immunity for God knows what. MICAUSE is right. 2 goes 2 far. That's an understatement. I'm voting Hell No on proposal 2.

Friday, October 24, 2008

Vote fraud is real. It's been real, and not just ACORN. It's more prevalent now than ever, and here's the latest proof.

The ballots of four wealthy New York Democrats were yanked yesterday after they admitted they set up a temporary house in Ohio and then voted in the battleground state.

The New Yorkers and nine pals from around the country admitted they should never have registered in the Buckeye State, said prosecutors, who had investigated the group for possible vote fraud.

As part of a deal with prosecutors, the 13 said they were sorry and had "misunderstood" the state's voting rules.

"Without reservations, we apologize to the community [and] for the problems this misunderstanding has caused," said Greg Nolan, spokesman for activist group Vote from Home.

The Post reported Monday that the group is run from the East 82nd Street brownstone of Heather Halstead, daughter of Halstead Properties founder Clark Halstead.

Halstead and her husband, Marc Gustafson - along with Bank of New York Mellon exec Joel Speyer and former New York Sun reporter and Scarsdale resident Daniel Hemel - and their pals were investigated after they crammed into a three-bedroom house in Columbus and registered to vote.

All of them cast Ohio ballots, even though they are already registered in New York.

This is no mistake. You can't tell me these people did not know what they were doing. Halstead, and Gustafson are all on the donor lists, and active in other states. They knew exactly what they were doing.

To the prosecutor. Why the HELL are you letting them go? If elections can not be trusted, this entire country is at risk. They should get the maximum punishment possible with major fines and jailtime, and I'm not one quick to support such a measure. This can not be tolerated.

I'm sure these rich leftists would have LOTS of fun in Ohio prison, or even in the Franklin County jail.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

All the hype is on the Presidential Race between McCain and Daley machine's puppet Obama. However, that's only one race, and the rest of the ballot is just as important.

Over in Livingston County, that is as follows:

State Supreme Court - The Michigan Supreme Court was recently hailed as the Finest Court in the Country. Cliff Taylor is one of the biggest reasons for it. As far as Hathaway goes, she donated to MUSLIM COMMUNITY PAC and Triangle Pride PAC, as well as democrat groups (as expected as she's their nominee for judge.

4th Appeals - I left this blank. Both are democrats. Paula Manderfield is facing Michael Kelly. Manderfield is an Ingham County Judge. Kelly is an attorney with plaintiff loyalties. If I had to pick one I'd pick Kelly. He's pro-life.

For District Judge, Jay Drick has a rematch with Theresa Brennan. Jay is a good guy and has my vote.

US Senate - Carl Levin v Jack Hoogendyk. Hoogendyk would be more of a Mike Pence sensibility to the biggest group of jokers on the face of the earth. The US Senate is the epidomy of the Peter Principle and nobody fits that bill in Michigan more than Carl Bailout Levin. While there is worse in the senate (Feinstein, Obama, Kennedy, Kerry, Biden, Leahy, Dodd, Stevens, Byrd) we can surely do better.

US House - Mike Rogers voted against the Bailout. The Livingston County Democrat head Judy Daubenmeir racked him over the coals for it. Bob Alexander (a gun grabber), is her main candidate. I don't think so. I'm sticking with Mike.

State House:47th District - Cindy Denby was Joe Hune's chief of staff. Joe did a real good job sticking up for fiscal conservatism when it wasn't always popular by leadership. He had a 100% anti-tax record, and voted against the fee increases, tax shifts, and other gimmicks as well. Cindy ran Joe's office well and would get my support if I still lived there. I don't know anything about Scott Lucas, outside of the fact that he didn't even get his campaign statements in on time.

66th District - Bill Rogers understands struggling businesses. He's in the home builder's industry and we all know how that's doing these days. We need some fiscal conservatism in Lansing. Donna Anderson is a nice person, but way too much of a big government supporter, pushing for micromanagement of how businesses conduct their operations.

State level Education Trustee Boards (State Board, MSU, UM, and Wayne State) - I went against all incumbents here.

I don't know much about Pam Green. Maggie Jones I know, but not that well. Domas is a good guy and running against someone whose claim to fame was being in a Michael Moore movie. That's automatic disqualification with me. Dolan v Buckland was a rematch from 06.

For the school races, If I still lived in Howell, I'd back Debi Drick and Doug Moore. Nothing against the others, but I know they have good heads on their shoulders.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Sorry for the lack of updates. I had a ton of work to do and that took priority. I should be getting on back soon. I'll mention this quickly.

Polls. I've seen 1pt and 2pt margins. I've seen 10pt margins. Which is true? Which isn't? Who knows. The difference between a lot of them is the sampling and estimates. Somee polls have a larger democrat sample and a lower Republican sample. That's an educated guess by the polling firm. Some say it is intentional sampling by in particular the media polls to try and depress GOP turnout. I don't know.

All I know with the polls is this. At best, it is a snapshot in time of how the election would be on that day. The real poll that counts is election day. You can control this poll if you are registered. Show up and cast your vote. This is the one that counts.

Also, those in the media going after Joe the Plumber should get their cameras smashed over their head, or stabbed by their own pens. Joe does not deserve to be vetted for daring to ask their Caesar a question that made him look bad. Joe is not running for office. He's a guy making a living. Obama does not get the vetting Joe did, and he wants to be our president.

I think the media should be vetted. Take the names of those who go after people like that. Vet them. Look up their past. They have skeletons. It's time these people who go after families (hypocrite Campbell Brown whose dad is a democrat politician who went to prison) and after Joe get theirs. In the alternative, call up the advertisers and tell them if they advertise here that we won't do business with them until someone better is in that timeslot or column.

Lastly, McCain. McCain needs to use his strengths. This is time of crisis. McCain needs to articulate his plans, with the foreign policy, with the mortgage crisis, and energy costs (still important), and use his experience (Palin did more than Obama in 1/2 of the time). He has it, and Obama is a pee-wee league candidate who did jack and shit during his four years in the Senate. (named a post office, and gave money to Congo). Jack left the building.

Two weeks left. The window is almost shut. Time to raise doubts and time to close the deal.

Thursday, October 09, 2008

I saw this coming as soon as it was a McCain v Obama race. The NRA is if nothing else, pragmatic. I don't agree with them giving McCain a flat out endorsement, although I agree with their "Defeat Obama" campaign. This isn't the Joe Schwarz endorsement which was pitiful of a clear anti vs clear pro. This election here is a leans our way vs the worst ever. It was a pragmatic pick from a pragmatic organization. Among gun organizations in Michigan, you have NRA's pragmatism sometimes to a fault, GOA's ideologues sometimes to a fault, and SAFR being at IMO, the rights spot in-between. MCRGO is just a joke and has been since June of 2002. American Hunters and Shooters Association is a fraudulent group that is a gun control organization committing astroturf in an attempt to look pro-gun and split gunowners away from voting against gun grabbers like Obama. Look up Ray Schoenke on my previous blog posts and you'll see what they are really about.

McCain's been good on this issue lately, signing the amicus brief regarding the DC Gun ban and voting against the ugly gun ban. He hasn't been perfect and had that bad stretch in the early 2000's on this issue, most likely IMO because of a spat he had with the NRA quasi-endorsing Bush in the primary in 2000. With their man Bill Richardson (from what I've heard he was their top choice) losing the democrat primary, and giving us the choices we have, it clear who is better than the other guy.

GOA on the other hand doesn't care and supports nobody at all. Both are equally bad to them.

SAFR's PAC (Bipartisan, I was the Republican and there was an active Democratic Party member on the PAC as well) graded McCain a "mixed" rating and Obama an unacceptable rating. SAFR's PAC has never endorsed a mixed rating candidate for president, and this year was no exception. If someone sees the candidate list, it is obvious who is better, but there's a difference between "better than the other guy" and an "endorsement."

From a partisan standpoint, the NRA's endorsement was great. From a gun rights standpoint, I can see the argument, I'd rather see a McCain B- (which would be an accurate grade, up from his C before thanks to a couple of very good votes recently) and Obama F- grade instead of giving McCain the endorsement from a gun rights credibility standpoint. They still should go with a continuation of the Defeat Obama campaign. I understand the pragmatism here as McCain's no Joe Schwarz, but I don't like lowering standards either.

One thing all gun rights organizations agree on however. Mr. Joyce Foundation Obama hates the 2nd Amendment and would ban everything if he had the chance. Let's not let him do it. Defend freedom and defeat Obama.

I should have caught this a long time ago. ACORN's workers have several convictions of vote fraud, and was also tied into the housing loan scandals through intimidation tactics. I missed the obvious when looking for a redmeat tie between ACORN, Obama's work as a community organizer and these scandals. Obama was a "community organizer" and doesn't mention the name of it. I focused on looking at the Annenberg and Woods funds, and already knew about the Joyce Foundation. I didn't take a good look at his legal record however. Law records are some of the most preserved records in this country.

More information is found on that side about that particular case. Seeing that, I went to Westlaw. Barack Obama does not have a long litigation history of published cases. Five cases of his were published. Two of them were ACORN, one of which he worked on twice on the Distict Court level as well as the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

This was a lawsuit over redistricting in the City of Chicago. Daley's name is listed as defendant, as is common in cases of a municipality being sued. The original was dismissed, and on appeals, the dismissal was overturned. I really can't fault this case, but the firm listing is interesting.

This was another case similar to the previous Motor Voter case. This case was dismissed.

Barack Obama is a self-described Community Organizer (A term which came from Chicago far leftist Saul Alinsky). ACORN is the "Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Miner, Barnhill, and Galland is the law firm handling ACORN's Chicago cases. Judson Miner, partner and first name mentioned, had 98 published cases. Three were ACORN, and associate Obama was in on all of them.

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

Bloomington, Ill., Oct. 8, 2008 -- For the second year in a row the vehicles most likely to collide with a deer are in West Virginia. Using its deer claims data from the last half of 2007 and the first half of 2008 and motor vehicle registration counts by state from the Federal Highway Administration, State Farm estimates the chances of a West Virginia vehicle colliding with a deer over the next 12 months at 1 in 45. Such a collision is even more likely in West Virginia than it was a year ago when the odds were 1 in 57.

The probability of a vehicle hitting a deer in West Virginia sometime in the next year is roughly two times greater than the possibility that you will be audited by the Internal Revenue Service in 2009 and 1,100 times greater than your chance of winning a state lottery grand prize if you buy one ticket per day for the next year.

Michigan remains second on the list. The likelihood of a specific vehicle striking a deer there next year is 1 in 78. Pennsylvania (1 in 97), Iowa (1 in 105) and Arkansas (1 in 108) each moved up one spot on the list to third, fourth and fifth respectively.

Deer-car accidents are a way of life in Michigan. There are over 60,000 of them each year and I'm lucky to be one of the few I know who have not gone had to have my truck go one on one with a deer. In Livingston County, the Argus reported the other day that 1 out of ever 5 accidents in the county are deer related. I'm not surprised as I see them all the time in October, and often see them any time of the year. The whole area near the Brighton Recreational Area is probably the most deer infested outside of Kensington Metro Park. The farm areas are common as well.

And the tips they give on driving.

1. Be aware of posted deer crossing signs. These are placed in active deer crossing areas. 2. Remember that deer are most active between 6 and 9 p.m. 3. Use high beam headlamps as much as possible at night to illuminate the areas from which deer will enter roadways. 4. Keep in mind that deer generally travel in herds – if you see one, there is a strong possibility others are nearby. 5. Do not rely on car-mounted deer whistles. They don’t work. 6. If a deer collision seems inevitable, attempting to swerve out of the way could cause you to lose control of your vehicle or place you in the path of an oncoming vehicle.

The best way in my experience of avoiding deer wrecks is to first know the area. When I take the back roads to Ann Arbor, I expect to see a deer. Sometime even in city limits. I saw 10 deer yesterday. When I go to my mom and dad's house, I'm surprised when I do not see a deer. They roam their neighborhood. I saw four of them last time I was there. They were outside on the front lawn. Knowing the area prepares drivers. That's why I drive slowly on my dad's street. Something can pop out of the woods anytime, even at high noon. High beams also help, particulary on two lane rural roads such as North Territorial, parts of M-36, D-19, Coon Lake Road and Hamburg Road. As speeds are higher, I'd much rather see a deer on the side of the road to slow down quickly, than to have to slam on my breaks and pray as I did last time I was on 8 mile.

With increased development, more safety zones, suburbanites feeding the deer (which I strongly oppose as nature should fear people), and less hunting, particulary in Southern Michigan, this is only going to get more common as there are going to be even more deer with less predators. Heads up, gardeners.

Monday, October 06, 2008

I shouldn't expect anything less from the company that gave us Jon Corzine and Henry Paulson.

Paulson picks interim head for rescue effort

WASHINGTON - The administration has selected a former Goldman Sachs executive to be the interim head of its $700 billion rescue effort for financial institutions.

Neel Kashkari, the Treasury's assistant secretary for international affairs, was selected Monday to be the interim head of Treasury's new Office of Financial Stability.

The designation was made by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who was the head of Goldman Sachs before he joined the Bush administration in 2006. Kashkari, 35, will head the office created by the emergency legislation enacted Friday to fund the largest government bailout in history.

Former Goldman Sachs head appoints his own. To say my guard is up is an understatement.

Lake County Republican Chairman John Curley wants a federal investigation into hundreds of voter registrations bearing fictitious signatures or the names of dead and underage people.

"Fraudulent applications are the workings of ACORN groups operating from Milwaukee and Chicago who are getting out the vote for Obama. I'm Republican, but I want everyone who should vote to vote. But I want a clean election," Curley said at a Wednesday news conference.

Lake County elections officials acknowledged they have found problems and had to reject a large portion of the 5,000 registration forms turned in recently by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, an activist group that conducted registration drives across the county this summer.

An ACORN spokesperson couldn't be reached Wednesday for comment. Telephones to ACORN offices in Gary, Indianapolis, Chicago and Milwaukee were reported to be disconnected.

There needs to be ID to vote, 30 day registration, and monitoring of all polling locations and absentee counting to make sure there is at little election stealing as possible.

Saturday, October 04, 2008

I often use a lot of sports sayings and sports related terms in my writings here. One of my favorite sayings is "You don't win if you don't show up." It explains itself. I already voted, so I'm unbiased when I say this.

I got a surprise in my mailbox today. Many of the local democrats know who I am. It's not a secret, some of my comments made the Argus. I've only voted for a democrat in the general election twice ever for any partisan office whatsoever, and I wasn't always a Republican. If I don't vote for the Republican candidate, I almost always vote for the Libertarian candidate. That's if the Republican candidate really ticks me off either by who he is, or by his votes. Don Sherwood, Bill Riordan and Ted Stevens are examples of Republicans who would not get my vote if I was in their district. Sherwood for being scum, Riordan for his social views, and Ahnold for his economic views. My views are a mix of ideology (those three above) and pragmatism (McCain and moreso Bush aren't my favorites, but clearly better than their opponents).

The surprise in the mail was a postcard election mailing from Matt Evans. He's the democrat running for Green Oak Supervisor. I've met Matt once, and he's a nice guy even if I don't agree with him on everything. After the primary election, I wondered which Matt Evans will show up on the campaign. The one who had a respectable showing in 2006 or the one who didn't get on the ballot for the primary, but got enough write ins to make the ballot. I can't speak for others, but I assume if this Republican got the mailing, others of all parties did too. My guess is that the mailing went to those on the absentee list or level "7+" voters list (those who almost always vote or in my case, always vote contested elections).

I did get a Mark St Charles mailing as well awhile back. I know Mark as well. I expect a mailing from him more with my GOP leanings so I was not surprised. He's gotta keep working since I do expect a competitive race in Green Oak.

One thing that bothers me as a voter is when a candidate does not do anything except put a name on the ballot in a contested election. That's a quick way to get me to throw off on an election to a libertarian candidate. As I make an effort to inform myself, if I don't know you or at least know of you, I'm not voting for you. Effort matters, and I will not blindly vote.

If nothing else, I can respect both Mark St Charles and Matt Evans for running real campaigns. You don't win if you don't show up. They know that. At the least, expect something in the mail if you are in Green Oak. One request though to both. Don't robocall me. I hate robocalls even more than I hate reading editorials from Mitch Albom.

Friday, October 03, 2008

Bad news. The house passed the Dodd/Reid/McConnell/Paulson/Bush bailout bill. The worse news is that this is the exact Senate bill so this will not go to conference committee. It will go strictly to Bush's desk where he will sign this.

Thursday, October 02, 2008

I think there are two big mistakes here. The first mistake is pulling back from here. The bigger mistake is announcing it to the media.

I long thought that Obama could not win Michigan. I still think he can't win Michigan, but McCain can lose Michigan if he can not seal the deal to why people should vote for him. So far, I don't think he has sealed the deal, and the window is a lot smaller than it was a week ago. Right now it's closed, and it needs to get broken open. I'll no longer comment on the bailout, but I think that hurt badly.

Michigan likes fighters. They don't respect "let's be nice" which is the McCain we've been seeing lately. Michigan respects the McCain that we saw on the debate. "Fight with me. I'll make them famous." That needs to come back, fast.

It's the economy stupid. James Carville understood it. There is no reason why McCain should concede this issue to a effeminate, elitist, arrogant, big mouthed, wuss who never struggled in his life like Obama. Obama has no blue collar appeal whatsoever. He's not man enough for this area. McCain needed to, and needs, to take advantage of that. He paid his dues. Obama has not. That opens a window and is nearly shut. Break it open.

My gut tells me that Michigan would have gone McCain as recently as last week. Not today. I think Obama would win here right now by 5-6%, similar to Gore in 2000 or Clinton in 1992. Today. There is still a month to go. McCain can not play prevent (from winning) defense and put all his eggs into Ohio, Florida, and Colorado. He's still in Pennsylvania, but that's a similar state demographically and culturaly to Michigan, especially in Western and Northeastern PA. Socially moderate conservative, economics moderally liberal and very populist. If he's struggling here, he's struggling there too, and a lot of the same issues here are factors there. Obama isn't man enough to win there or here, but that doesn't mean he won't get enough of those votes by default, because McCain is not hitting the right issues.

If I were Mac's campaign manager, I'd do this whether it be here or elsewhere:

1. FIGHT! Less Bob Dole. Less of either George Bush. More Harry Truman. Be the Maverick. 2. Jobs, jobs, jobs. Most people are not overly concerned with Wall Street. We're concerned about main street, our jobs, and eventual retirements. 3. Experience. Obama had a chance to change four years ago and failed. I brought change, by fighting for it. 4. Expose what a radical Obama is. Total handgun ban. Failed to protect babies that survived abortions. Big giveaways of our tax money. Leftist judges. Worked for ACORN and their crookedness. Tied to the Chicago machine. Tied up with the scandals and golden parachute of Jim Johnson and Franklin Raines. Tied with slumlord Tony Resko. Tied up with terrorist Bill Ayers. We should be seeing TV ads with Obama and Ayers and their work together on two boards of directors, and fundraisers at Bill's house. 5. Let Palin be Palin. Stop having Bush's people manage her and let her be herself. Why was she picked and not others, including other women. She was a reformer in Alaska. Don't let the cocktail party types influence you. Fight them too if you have too.

It's the 4th Quarter. Are we going to depend on John Elway taking shots downfield, or are we going to depend on the Detroit Lions secondary? Outside of the little I can do, it's not my call to make. This campaign has had a nasty week, but it is winnable with a little work and a little more aggressiveness.

Wednesday, October 01, 2008

The bailout passed the senate and goes to the house. Call your house members. This crap submarine needs to be defeated. Unfortunately, McCain backed it. I know he's real pragmatic at times, and that often is good, but not here. Obama voted for it, no surprise. Biden also voted for it. Carl Levin voted for it.

Shockingly, Stabenow got this one right. Whatever her reasons, I give her a thumbs up. Tom Coburn disappointed me the most on this. I expect more from him.

Jim DeMint tried to be the hero. I'll give him credit for that, but it wasn't enough. The jokers Reid, McConnell, and Bush made sure this got through.

Again, time for Pence, Hensarling, Blackburn, and McCotter to pull off one more miracle vote in the house.

Now, before panicking, remember that this is a DRAFT and NOT the final bill. This is being considered. A better, or worse bill could pass the senate.

I skimmed the bill since I don't have time to in depth read 400 pages. So far I don't like:- Massive power to the sec of treasury. (Paulson's bill from before)- Does not reform the problems. Bandaid. Subprime still here. No drilling. - Debt limit - $12 TRILLION? - INCREASE in Coal tax. - Ethanol- "Energy bonds" - Carbon credits - Carbon Dioxide treated as income? WTF? - Most of the bill is unrelated to fixing the problem of energy COSTS, Mortgages, and debt. - Reduction of deductions due to domestic drilling (Tax increase)- Increase in oil tax per barrell.

That's just what I saw already in 20 minutes. This bill is unacceptable, and why we ALWAYS need to watch to see what crap Congress springs on us in what is deemed an emergency situation. Emergencies is how we were stuck with the Patriot Act, the MBT tax, and the department of homeland security. It will be how we get something as bad or worse than this draft if we don't call our congresscritters and presidential candidates.